AMENDED COMPLAINTJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
and
IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
MICHAEL HAMEL, in his official and
individual capacity;
MICHAEL MCNALL, in his official and
individual capacity;
RENE NUTTER in her official and
individual capacity;
SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his official
and individual capacity;
ERIC STEELE in his official and individual
capacity;
MICHELE HINIG in her official and
individual capacity;
JAMES MOORE in his official and
individual capacity;
WILLIAM RUSSELL in his official and
individual capacity;
JERRY POOLE in his official and individual
capacity;
MISTY DANIELS in her official and
individual capacity;
TODD SPITZER in his official and
individual capacity;
DUSTIN RICE in his official and individual
capacity;
TAYLOR KRONE in her official and
individual capacity;

Case No.: _

AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
COMPLAINT
ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her
official and individual capacity; and
GAGANJOT BATTH, in her official and
individual capacity.
Defendants

COMES NOW Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, with this complaint against the Defendants,
and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

  1. This case involves an incidence that took place on January 25, 2020 at the Hoag
    Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, where the Plaintiff was assaulted by Herbert Conrad, who was a
    Security Officer at the hospital. After the assault, the Irvine Police Department charged the
    Plaintiff based on a Police report containing false allegations that the Plaintiff was the one who
    assaulted the Second Defendant. The case was later dismissed. Plaintiff now files this case to
    seek redress against the Defendants in that regard.

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
  2. Defendant IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT of address [ENTER ADDRESS] is
    the local law enforcement agency of the city of Irvine, California, United States. This Defendant
    is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Michelle L.
    Hinig.
  3. Defendant, MICHAEL HAMEL of address [ENTER ADDRESS], is the former
    Irvine Police Department Chief. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat
    superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the Defendant police officers. Plaintiff sues him in
    both his official and individual capacity.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
COMPLAINT

  1. Defendant, SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine
    CA 92606-5207, was/is a Sergeant Detective at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is
    liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Michelle L.
    Hinig. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity.
  2. Defendant, MICHELE HINIG, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was a Detective
    at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity.
  3. Defendant, RENE NUTTER, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-
    5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues her in both her
    official and individual capacity.
  4. Defendant, MICHAEL MCCALL, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA
    92606-5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues him in both
    his official and individual capacity.
  5. Defendant, ERIC STEELE, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-
    5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues him in both his
    official and individual capacity.
  6. Defendant, JAMES MOORE, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-
    5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is liable under the
    doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Rene Nutter, Mike McCall,
    and Eric Steele. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity.
  7. Defendant, WILLIAM RUSSELL, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA
    92606-5207, was/is a Sergeant at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is liable under
    the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Rene Nutter, Mike
    McCall, and Eric Steele. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
COMPLAINT

  1. Defendant, JERRY POOLE, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was/is an Assistant
    Investigator at the DA’s office. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity.
  2. Defendant, MISTY DANIELS, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was/is a Lead
    Investigator at the DA’s office. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat
    superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of
    the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity.
  3. Defendant, TODD SPITZER, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
    California 92703, is the District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable
    under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s)
    responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and
    individual capacity.
  4. Defendant, DUSTIN RICE, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
    California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This
    Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of
    the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues him in both his
    official and individual capacity.
  5. Defendant, TAYLOR KRONE, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
    California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This
    Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of
    the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her
    official and individual capacity.
  6. Defendant, ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF, of address 300 N. Flower Street
    Santa Ana, California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California.
    This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
COMPLAINT

inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in
both her official and individual capacity.

  1. Defendant, GAGANJOT BATTH, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
    California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This
    Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of
    the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her
    official and individual capacity.

JURISDICITON AND VENUE

  1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, on the basis of
    there being a federal question relating to 42 USC § 1983.
  2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Plaintiff and the
    Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. Plaintiff and the Defendants live
    within the jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, a substantial part of the acts and omissions forming
    the basis of these claims occurred in the Central District of California and arose from the actions
    or inactions of the Defendants.

FACTS

  1. Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian.
  2. The incidence that gave rise to this action took place on January 25, 2020, when
    the Plaintiff went to visit the mother.
  3. As Plaintiff was checking in at the ER at the said hospital, Herbert Conrad stole
    Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
  4. The police officers arrived. Notably, Defendants Rene Nutter, Michael McCall,
    and Eric Steele were the officers present at the scene. Defendant Michael McCall took a police

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
COMPLAINT

report of the incidence, and took pictures of Plaintiff’s hands. Interestingly, Herbert Conrad gave
false information that Plaintiff was the one who punched his face. It is worth noting that
Defendant Michael McCall included the false allegations in the police report without
ascertaining their veracity thereof. Later on, Defendant Michele Hinig went to the hospital and
saw the video footage of the scene but lied. The said Defendant proceeded to make a declaration
for warrant of my arrest, charging me with assault and battery. The video footage was therefore
not given due consideration in the prosecution of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged
and was prosecuted by the Orange County DA, based on the said fabricated report. She made
several attempts to challenge the prosecution. For instance, she wrote letters to Defendant Todd
Spritzer at the DA’s main and Regional Office at the Harbor Justice Center, with a specific
request to view the footage of the hospital surveillance to ascertain that the allegations against
me in the police report was utterly false. However, no consideration was given to the video
footage.

  1. During the pendency of the said case, the Plaintiff made formal requests to Irvine
    Police Department Records when Mike Hamel was Police Chief to obtain Michelle L. Hinig’s
    Declaration in Support of Arrest warrant, in a bid to have evidence of Herbert Conrad’s
    fabricated allegations. The Plaintiff was only given a copy of the report after the case was
    dismissed. This amounts to a violation of the Plaintiff’s due process rights that are guaranteed
    under the Constitution.
  2. Interestingly, the said case was dismissed on June 2020.
  3. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the hospital camera
    footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020 was not considered in the Prosecution of the
    case against the Plaintiff.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7
COMPLAINT

  1. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against
    Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the
    malicious prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14 TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

(Against all Defendants)

  1. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are re-alleged and
    incorporated herein by reference.
  2. Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be
    evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power.
    Accordingly, due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and
    (3) an impartial tribunal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950).
  3. It follows; due process also requires an opportunity for confrontation and cross-
    examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record. Fuentes v. Shevin,
    407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).
  4. In the instant action, the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when
    they subjected Plaintiff to prosecution based on false allegations.
  5. Defendant Michelle L. Hinig accepted Herbert’s false allegations without inviting
    him to strict proof thereof. Further, Defendant Michelle L. Hinig failed to consider the video
    footage of the incident, which shows that the Defendant was innocent.
  6. The DA office failed to consider the said footage, and proceeded to prosecute the
    Plaintiff based on the false allegations in the police report.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
COMPLAINT

  1. The Supervisors and Superiors at the Irvine Police Department and at the DA’s
    office are liable for the individual Defendants’ actions and/or inactions under the doctrine of
    respondeat superior.
  2. The Defendants’ actions and/or inactions were so arbitrary and capricious that
    they completely disregarded the salient constitutional safeguards for fair trial.
  3. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
    injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
    include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
    expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
    employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 2

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14 TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS

(Against all Defendants)

  1. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 are re-alleged and
    incorporated herein by reference.
  2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in
    pertinent part that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
    of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
  3. In order to establish a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth
    Amendment, the Plaintiffs first must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the
    Defendants treated them differently/discriminatorily from other similarly situated individuals, (2)
    this different/discriminatory treatment impermissibly infringed on the exercise of Plaintiffs’
    fundamental right to freedom of speech, and (3) was not necessary to serve a compelling
    governmental interest. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9
COMPLAINT

  1. In the instant action, the Defendants either directly or indirectly subjected the
    Plaintiff to prosecution based on false allegations. All attempts by the Plaintiff to have the video
    surveillance footage examined, was futile. The Plaintiff avers that she was discriminatorily
    treated when the Defendants refused to consider evidence from the footage. It is clear that the
    Plaintiff was unfairly treated because no explanation was given as to why the footage could not
    be relied upon in the dismissed case.
  2. As a result of the differential treatment, the Plaintiff was unfairly prosecuted thus
    violating her rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.
  3. There is no legitimate reason to explain the Defendants’ actions and/or inactions.
    For this reason, the lack of a compelling government interest in prosecuting the Plaintiff based
    on false allegations, and failure to consider video evidence, amounts to blatant violation of
    Plaintiff’s equal protection rights.
  4. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
    injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
    include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
    expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
    employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 3

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(Against all Defendants)

  1. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and
    incorporated herein by reference.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10
COMPLAINT

  1. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, every person in the United States shall have the same right in
    every State and Territory to give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
    for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.
  2. In the instant action, the Plaintiff belongs to a racial minority. Plaintiff, just like
    any other American, expects to enjoy all the constitutionally guaranteed rights.
  3. However, in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights, the Defendants refused to accept
    and/or consider the evidence of the video footage, which would show that the Plaintiff is
    innocent, and that the report in the police report was false.
  4. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
    injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
    include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
    expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
    employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 4

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

(Against Defendants Jerry Poole, Misty Daniels, Todd Spitzer, Dustin Rice, Taylor Krone,

Allison Taylor and Gaganjot Batth)

  1. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and
    incorporated herein by reference.
  2. Malicious prosecution amounts to the filing of a lawsuit for an improper purpose,
    and without grounds or probable cause. The common law tort of malicious prosecution generally
    requires four elements: (1) the defendant must have initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the proceeding
    must have ended in the plaintiffs favor; (3) the proceeding must have been initiated without probable
    cause; and (4) the defendant must have acted maliciously in the initiation of the prosecution.’ See Usher

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11
COMPLAINT

v. City of LA., 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th Cir. 1987); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
TORTS § 653.

  1. In the instant action, the Defendants initiated a criminal proceeding against the
    Plaintiff. The said case was dismissed.
  2. The Defendants initiated the prosecution based on false allegations, and without
    probable cause. Besides, the Defendants refused to consider the footage from the hospital, which
    would have shown that the Plaintiff is innocent.
  3. Plaintiff avers that a total disregard of contrary evidence is malicious.
  4. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
    injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
    include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
    expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
    employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 5

VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER COLOUR OF LAW

(Against all Defendants)

  1. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55 are re-alleged and
    incorporated herein by reference.
  2. The Defendants (the Police Department, the Police Officers, the Detectives, the
    Officers at the DA’s office), acting under the color of law violated Plaintiff’s due process rights
    and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
  3. Without probable cause, the Police erroneously charged the Plaintiff and the DA’s
    office prosecuted the Plaintiff, in reckless disregard for the truth. As prosecuting attorneys, the
    DA Defendants were placed under a duty to present all material facts and/or evidence before the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12
COMPLAINT

Court. It is worth noting that in a criminal case, the corpus delicti must prove, beyond reasonable
doubt, that a crime has been committed. However, in contradiction to their expectation, the
Defendants failed to consider evidence from the video footage.

  1. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights that are
    guaranteed by the Constitution.
  2. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
    injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
    include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
    expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
    employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 6

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Against all Defendants)

  1. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 60 are re-alleged and
    incorporated herein by reference.
  2. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants, as set forth above, was extreme,
    and outrageous.
  3. The Defendants ought to have reasonably known that their actions and/or
    inactions would cause severe harm on Plaintiff.
  4. The Defendants failed to consider the adverse effects of their actions and/or
    inactions on Plaintiff. Notably, they failed to acknowledge the fact that such actions and/or
    inactions would cause Plaintiff emotional harm and distress.
  5. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
    injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13
COMPLAINT

include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff requests trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Eun Lim, is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and
he hereby prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against the Defendants as follows:
i. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff general damages, including emotional
distress, in a sum to be ascertained at a trial of this matter,
ii. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff special damages,
iii. That Defendants, be required to pay Plaintiff ‘s fees time pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,
or any other applicable provision,
iv. That Defendants required to pay Plaintiff punitive damages in a sum to be ascertained
at a trial of this matter,
v. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff costs of the suit herein incurred, and
vi. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14
COMPLAINT

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: __

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


EUN JUNG LIM
Pro se

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15
COMPLAINT

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )